Friday, March 5, 2010

The nuking of our constitution: The Nuclear Option.

As Obama and the democrats (or as I like to call most of them, demoncrats) are willing to do whatever it takes to advance their socialist agenda, they're now threatening to use the "nuclear option" of making it part of the budgetary process of reconciliation and have it pass in the senate by a 50% plus one (which in a tie of 50/50 is the vote of the Vice President). It seem that calling such a tactic the "nuclear option" is by far the most accurate and honest statement that I've heard since Obama got elected. For using such a tactic to get a horrid bill pass over the will and desire of the electorate is not only totalitarian in nature, but is an out and out assault on our constitution. As I stated earlier on how the "birther" issue is a constitutional valid as many thought it to be outdated and unnecessary, is now going to get another far more serious lesson on constitutionalism and how we're letting our constitutional republic die right from under out noses.

The big issue is that the democrats, with 59 votes (provided that Brown or Snowe doesn't vote with the democrats) don't have enough votes to stop a GOP filibuster. It's been traditional, as well as the founders intent, to have a super majority to bust debate in the senate, unlike in the house which just goes to up or down votes with 50% plus one need to move on. More on that later. Though the senate responsibilities have several differences than the house, say confirmations, when it came to law making, the super majority requirement was to be its staple.

When things were being ironed out during that "illegal" constitutional convention, much of the heat was over how the legislative branch was to be designed. The Judicial and Executive were easy enough (other than how justices would be enough), the congressional weren't. Should it be determined by the states and state rights or should it be based on population and the whims of the majority. The founding fathers wanted the government to be responsive to the electorate, but didn't want it to fall to the tyranny of the majority. After all, they knew a majority was asking 4 wolves and 3 sheeps what's going to be for dinner. In the house, the bill to make the sheeps the dinner would pass. In the senate where, originally, 67%, or two out of three must agree to move on to vote on the bill, the three sheeps can say wait a sec, we need to debate this some more. The senate was to be where the great deal of empathizes was to be placed on the debate of the validity of bills and laws. This was the keystone difference that was compromised by the founding fathers to have the government be responsive to the population (by the house of representatives) and have a check against the passion and tyranny of the majority against minority rights or by the states (after all, Rode Island's interests can be overwhelmed by New York's if only based on population).

A few changes, for the worse it seemed, had been made since the ratification of our constitution. First, the misguided 17th amendment that has the senators elected by the populace instead of the state legislatures as it was originally intended. The intent of the 2 chamber congress was to have populace, then state rights interests behind the passage of our bills. When the 17th amendment came along, that changed. If anyone is willing to take a look at history, state rights started to decline when this amendment was passed. State interests were superseded by the populace because now our senators are elected the same way as our representatives and thus tend to convey the interest of the day of the populace instead of the interests of the states they were "selected" to represent. If those of a state didn't care for how the senators were representing them, they would change their state government. Now, the state government doesn't even factor in, eliminating the purpose the senate was created for in the first place.

The other change was when the senate rules were changed to allow for 60 votes instead of 67 that was originally intended. The senate was were the real debate of the merits of a bill was to be made. After all, it was the intent that the senate be the "wiser" of the chambers. That's why they get 6 year terms because they can weather out the current fade or administration's agenda should it proved to be counter to the interests of the states. Thus a super majority was required to provide debate and scrutiny of a bill and said passage is based on "wisdom" over "passion". Now, its watering down has set a precedence that the scrutiny of our bill doesn't need to have as much of the wisdom as in the past (not to say some bill didn't have their share of foolishness). It set up the means of one party to gain a power grab should it find the restrictiveness of the rule to be a hindrance of passing any radical agenda of either party. That what, and I can't believe I'm quoting the man but this one time he was right, Joe Biden was referring to when the Republicans were threatening the same thing over Clinton's judicial nominee's when the Republicans threaten the nuclear option to force a nay vote on his appointees. Biden called it a power grab by the Republicans. Now that it's his party in power, it's suddenly ok.

The gist is this, if we allow this nuclear option through, we're just allowed the nuclear annihilation of the constitution. The two chambers will really become one because with the 50% plus one in the senate, how is it really any different than the house (with a few exception like confirmations)? To whom interests are they really serving, the state's they're now elected to represent, or the passions of the day of the populace that designed to be represented in the house. Without the means to debate and scrutinize bills like this horrid health care bill that nobody has bother to read, much less understand, to pass based on the whim we need to do something, then what's next? Take away our guns (2nd amendment be damned and figure to be outdated anyways!), forced to care for illegals, anyone with opposing views of the "one" be guilty of hate speech or even thoughts. How does this differ from the old Soviet Union when one party was in control of the lawmaking (as it will become with this option?).

I remember when Obama was elected of a editorial cartoon that showed him taping together the constitution. It was in reference how he's going to restore constitutional government over the perceived violations that George Bush enacted. I thought how ironic since he's the most anti-constitutionalists candidate ever to become elected. He may not even had been born here (he's still hasn't produce proper proof and spent over a million dollars to deny that proof) which would mean his very election has set the foundation of the destruction because the passion of the day was that the natural born citizen provision of the constitution was outdated anyways. If anything, if he was born here, it shows the comtempt he has for the constitution by denying his records to be seen. Now he's set with his party to annihilate another provision. How many more of our constitutional protections are we willing to tolerate? Or we just going to become like the "One" and believe the constitution has too many "negative liberties". Only to find out in a couple of years that we voted and became complacent to losing our freedoms. As I watch what's unfolding, I've come to an Epiphany about what Obama really meant when he said he rather have one good term than two bad ones. He rather see the Democrats and him get crucified by the voters, if he leaves as a legend as the man that turned our constitutional republic into a so called democratic socialist state. Well, the nuclear option will pave the way.

No comments: